Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and a retrospective planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X have complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and a retrospective planning application for a site near their home. They say the development has a significant impact on their property and the Council should have taken enforcement action to remove the unauthorised extension.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr and Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone has built a development without permission. It is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if it is expedient to take further action. Government guidance stresses the importance of affective enforcement action to maintain public confidence in the planning system but says councils should act proportionately.
5. In this case, the Council invited Mr and Mrs X’s neighbour to submit a retrospective planning application. I understand Mr and Mrs X say the Council should have taken enforcement action to ensure their neighbour complied with the plans originally approved. But the Council did not need to take enforcement action just because there had been a breach of planning control and it is not unusual for councils to invite a developer to make a retrospective planning application to regularise a situation.
6. Mr and Mrs X say the extension has a significant impact on their property. But I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. However, the officer decided the impact of the development would not be significant enough to warrant the refusal of the application. The acceptability of the development was also discussed during the planning committee meeting before members voted to grant planning permission.
7. I understand Mr and Mrs X disagree with the Council’s decision to grant retrospective planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the development was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman